I have a really nice .45 Colt SAA clone made by Armi San Marco (Italy) that I bought a couple of years ago for an obscenely low price that was next-to-new.
My cylinder has about 0.0015"-0.002" end shake I'd like to remove and need to know where I can find a bushing/shim whatever just to tighten this thing back up again.
I have the newest Brownell's catalog, and can't find any such critter.
Timing is still excellent, so that's not a worry, and I know the cylinder is original to the gun.
The frame is also NOT stretched because I don't hot-rod this gun. I use 6.5 gr. of Hodgdon's HP-38 powder behind a 255-gr. Keith SWC and use standard Winchester pistol primers. This gives me about 785 fps, and this light powder charge is EXTREMELY and surprisingly consistent. And I've never ONCE had and any signs of high or excessive pressure.
I just want to tighten this gun up a bit. It kills deer like nobody's business out to 50 yards (in my hands).
Allen
Need Bushing/Shim for EMF .45 Colt SAA
Moderators: Bullseye, Moderators
-
allendavis
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:27 pm
Alan,
According to a gunsmith I spoke with here in IL .001" to .002" endshake is optimum. So according to his information, your gun is still in good shape.
Power Custom sells end shake shims for Colts. Brownells usually carries them.
But here is Power Customs web site: http://www.powercustom.com/.
Also your load of 6.5grs of HP-38 is a borderline squib load. HP-38 is the same powder as Winchesters 231, and in the Winchester Load data manual it calls for 7.1grs with a 255gr lead bullet. They say this will do 860fps from a 5.5" test barrel with 13,000 CUP.
In the2006 issue of Hodgdon Annual Manual the data for the .45 Colt with HP-38 and a 250gr lead bullet is:
Starting load;
5.8grs, 785fps, 9,100 CUP
The max load is;
7.1grs, 916fps, 13,900 CUP
This data was tested from a 7.25" test barrel. And used the Win WLP primer.
So your load is below standard pressure loads. Nothing to worry about in the wear causing department.
I'd say from what you related in your post that your gun is just setteling in and is good shape.
Joe
According to a gunsmith I spoke with here in IL .001" to .002" endshake is optimum. So according to his information, your gun is still in good shape.
Power Custom sells end shake shims for Colts. Brownells usually carries them.
But here is Power Customs web site: http://www.powercustom.com/.
Also your load of 6.5grs of HP-38 is a borderline squib load. HP-38 is the same powder as Winchesters 231, and in the Winchester Load data manual it calls for 7.1grs with a 255gr lead bullet. They say this will do 860fps from a 5.5" test barrel with 13,000 CUP.
In the2006 issue of Hodgdon Annual Manual the data for the .45 Colt with HP-38 and a 250gr lead bullet is:
Starting load;
5.8grs, 785fps, 9,100 CUP
The max load is;
7.1grs, 916fps, 13,900 CUP
This data was tested from a 7.25" test barrel. And used the Win WLP primer.
So your load is below standard pressure loads. Nothing to worry about in the wear causing department.
I'd say from what you related in your post that your gun is just setteling in and is good shape.
Joe
Good information!
I'm not much of a wheel gun man but a long time ago I used to have a Dan Wesson .38/.357. Those pistols came with multiple length replacementbarrels and the gap could be set by the user. The optimum adjustment for the cylinder to barrel forcing cone was .006", and the gun even came with a shim spacer gauge to set the gap. The big problem is if the barrel/cylinder alignment is off and the gun starts spitting lead. This condition happens when people flip the cylinder gate open, like in the movies, and bend the gate arm.
Other than being slightly annoying to you, your gun sounds like it is fine.
R,
Bullseye
I'm not much of a wheel gun man but a long time ago I used to have a Dan Wesson .38/.357. Those pistols came with multiple length replacementbarrels and the gap could be set by the user. The optimum adjustment for the cylinder to barrel forcing cone was .006", and the gun even came with a shim spacer gauge to set the gap. The big problem is if the barrel/cylinder alignment is off and the gun starts spitting lead. This condition happens when people flip the cylinder gate open, like in the movies, and bend the gate arm.
Other than being slightly annoying to you, your gun sounds like it is fine.
R,
Bullseye
-
allendavis
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:27 pm
To J Miller & Bullseye
Thanks so much for the replies, I always appreciate feedback.
However, I think I want to stick with my HP-38 loading, but not at 6.5 gr. for now. I will up my load 1/10th of a grain to see what happens.
At the same time, I've learned that, for whatever reasons, ALL loading manuals have gotten more and more conservative over the last 50 years -- even longer -- since I own a First Edition of Phillip B. Sharpe's book "The Complete Guide to Handloading," copyright 1937 and printed that same year.
My Speer manuals from the mid 1960s and late 1970s scare the crap out of me when I compare them to my more modern manuals.
The debate will rage forever about WHY loading manuals are supposedly getting more "conservative" and careful.
I've chronographed my .45 Colt load of 6.5 gr. of HP-38, and 785 fps is my average with a standard deviation of about 35. I'd say that's very damn consistent. If I had bigger sights like, say the Ruger Blackhawk, I could nail down 2" at 50 yards -- seriously. But the keen sights of a true SAA clone, combined with my aging eyes, make this impossible, although most younger shooters can do better than me with this gun and load.
I still don't like the end-shake I get with this gun. I like it tighter, but without binding, mind you.
To Bullseye:
I've owned a couple of the old first- and second-generation Dan Wesson revolvers, and I loved them for their accuracy, largely because the owner could set the barrel/cylinder gap. I always set my barrel/cylinder gap to .004" with great success and no binding. I also got a sizeable jump in velocity with that tighter gap.
What makes a revolver "spit lead" is if the timing is off and the cylinder isn't properly aligning with the forcing cone and barrel.
During my active years of gunsmithing, I worked on more Dan Wesson revolvers than all other brands, makes and models put together and had such a workload that I became a Dan Wesson-certified service center/person.
The problem I encountered wasn't what you describe, but rather rapid double-action firing in combination with hands/pawls (whatever term you like) that were too soft (usually insufficient heat-treating) and the timing would get off-kilter.
I want to slap people I see abusing their double-action revolvers, but there's no cure for stupidity.
My own Dan Wesson in .41 Magnum had two barrels. One at 6" the other at 10". The long barrel only gave me about 60-70 fps increase in velocity, but the darned thing was so front-heavy I couldn't use it for hunting.
My annoyance is that I shouldn't have to tolerate the cylinder in my SAA clone having the back-and-forth end-shake that it has, even if it is only .002".
I probably should buy another powder for my .45 Colt, but I've found that HP-38 is a very, very versatile powder that burns very, very cleanly. So please don't ask me to try Unique. I was using that crap back when Lyndon Johnson was president, and since Hercules is out-of-business, the powder isn't as good as it was then.
Witness what happened to all the IMR and SR powders once DuPont sold out.
I'd love replies if you disagree with anything I've said.
Allen
Thanks so much for the replies, I always appreciate feedback.
However, I think I want to stick with my HP-38 loading, but not at 6.5 gr. for now. I will up my load 1/10th of a grain to see what happens.
At the same time, I've learned that, for whatever reasons, ALL loading manuals have gotten more and more conservative over the last 50 years -- even longer -- since I own a First Edition of Phillip B. Sharpe's book "The Complete Guide to Handloading," copyright 1937 and printed that same year.
My Speer manuals from the mid 1960s and late 1970s scare the crap out of me when I compare them to my more modern manuals.
The debate will rage forever about WHY loading manuals are supposedly getting more "conservative" and careful.
I've chronographed my .45 Colt load of 6.5 gr. of HP-38, and 785 fps is my average with a standard deviation of about 35. I'd say that's very damn consistent. If I had bigger sights like, say the Ruger Blackhawk, I could nail down 2" at 50 yards -- seriously. But the keen sights of a true SAA clone, combined with my aging eyes, make this impossible, although most younger shooters can do better than me with this gun and load.
I still don't like the end-shake I get with this gun. I like it tighter, but without binding, mind you.
To Bullseye:
I've owned a couple of the old first- and second-generation Dan Wesson revolvers, and I loved them for their accuracy, largely because the owner could set the barrel/cylinder gap. I always set my barrel/cylinder gap to .004" with great success and no binding. I also got a sizeable jump in velocity with that tighter gap.
What makes a revolver "spit lead" is if the timing is off and the cylinder isn't properly aligning with the forcing cone and barrel.
During my active years of gunsmithing, I worked on more Dan Wesson revolvers than all other brands, makes and models put together and had such a workload that I became a Dan Wesson-certified service center/person.
The problem I encountered wasn't what you describe, but rather rapid double-action firing in combination with hands/pawls (whatever term you like) that were too soft (usually insufficient heat-treating) and the timing would get off-kilter.
I want to slap people I see abusing their double-action revolvers, but there's no cure for stupidity.
My own Dan Wesson in .41 Magnum had two barrels. One at 6" the other at 10". The long barrel only gave me about 60-70 fps increase in velocity, but the darned thing was so front-heavy I couldn't use it for hunting.
My annoyance is that I shouldn't have to tolerate the cylinder in my SAA clone having the back-and-forth end-shake that it has, even if it is only .002".
I probably should buy another powder for my .45 Colt, but I've found that HP-38 is a very, very versatile powder that burns very, very cleanly. So please don't ask me to try Unique. I was using that crap back when Lyndon Johnson was president, and since Hercules is out-of-business, the powder isn't as good as it was then.
Witness what happened to all the IMR and SR powders once DuPont sold out.
I'd love replies if you disagree with anything I've said.
Allen
Allen, I don't disagree with any of the information you've posted. I may have used slightly different terms, but we were essentially talking about the same things,problemwise.
Your revolver experience likely greater than mine. However, Brownells has Colt SAA cylinder Endshake bearings available for reproduction guns. Try here: http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/ ... E+BEARINGS
They're near the bottom of the page.
Replacing the endshake bearings can have an impact on cylinder gap spacing/head spacing in your pistol. I don't believe you mentiond the gap of your SAA clone at full lock-up, but adding these bearing shims can set the cylinder back the distance you need to remove the endshake. If your gap is on the high side of "in-tolerance" then the shims may push you out of the safety envelope, requiring the barrel to be set back to close the gap. You'll have to be the judge on if further repair work is necessary.
Hope this helps.
R,
Bullseye
Your revolver experience likely greater than mine. However, Brownells has Colt SAA cylinder Endshake bearings available for reproduction guns. Try here: http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/ ... E+BEARINGS
They're near the bottom of the page.
Replacing the endshake bearings can have an impact on cylinder gap spacing/head spacing in your pistol. I don't believe you mentiond the gap of your SAA clone at full lock-up, but adding these bearing shims can set the cylinder back the distance you need to remove the endshake. If your gap is on the high side of "in-tolerance" then the shims may push you out of the safety envelope, requiring the barrel to be set back to close the gap. You'll have to be the judge on if further repair work is necessary.
Hope this helps.
R,
Bullseye
Alan,
I didn't suggest changing loadings. I mearly commented that HP-38 and Win 231 is the same powder just sold under different names by two different companies. And compared the load data from each.
After comparing the data I stated: (And I quote myself here) "So your load is below standard pressure loads. Nothing to worry about in the wear causing department."
I shoot lots of Win 231 from my own .45 Colts. I primarily use the 7.1 gr load simply because it's a factory duplication load.
I only mentioned that your load was a borderline squib load because I thought you were conserned that it was causing your gun to wear prematurely. Sorry, it apears I miss-understood what you posted.
If you want to reduce the endshake to .000" then by all means go for it.
I'd like to tighten up my OM Ruger SAs too, but they don't use a bushing to regulate endshake and I'm too cheep to pay shipping to send them to an out of state gunsmith. So since they are still within safe limits - I just shoot 'em as is.
About Dan Wessons. I've had two or three in years past. I disremember which. I didn't keep them long. Although they were tough, accurate, reliable, and for the most part durable, they all had one annoying trait that I could not tollerate. No matter what techniqe I used to set the barrel / cylinder gap, it would close up pretty quick. I ended up carrying the barrel wrench and feeler guage with me every time I went shooting the guns. That got old quick.
Traded all of them off for other shooters.
Joe
I didn't suggest changing loadings. I mearly commented that HP-38 and Win 231 is the same powder just sold under different names by two different companies. And compared the load data from each.
After comparing the data I stated: (And I quote myself here) "So your load is below standard pressure loads. Nothing to worry about in the wear causing department."
I shoot lots of Win 231 from my own .45 Colts. I primarily use the 7.1 gr load simply because it's a factory duplication load.
I only mentioned that your load was a borderline squib load because I thought you were conserned that it was causing your gun to wear prematurely. Sorry, it apears I miss-understood what you posted.
If you want to reduce the endshake to .000" then by all means go for it.
I'd like to tighten up my OM Ruger SAs too, but they don't use a bushing to regulate endshake and I'm too cheep to pay shipping to send them to an out of state gunsmith. So since they are still within safe limits - I just shoot 'em as is.
About Dan Wessons. I've had two or three in years past. I disremember which. I didn't keep them long. Although they were tough, accurate, reliable, and for the most part durable, they all had one annoying trait that I could not tollerate. No matter what techniqe I used to set the barrel / cylinder gap, it would close up pretty quick. I ended up carrying the barrel wrench and feeler guage with me every time I went shooting the guns. That got old quick.
Traded all of them off for other shooters.
Joe
-
allendavis
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:27 pm
Re: Bushing/Shim of SAA Cylinder
Bullseye wrote
FYI, when my cylinder is fully-forward, the barrel/cylinder gap is .003" and is .005" when fully-backward, so I've got .002" endshake, so an excessive barrel/cylinder gap won't be a problem.
Incidentally, I have an Old Model Ruger Blackhawk in .41 Mag. (made in 1965) that has a B/C gap of .009" and it shoots like a demon.
I have a load (170 gr. Sierra JHC in front of 22.5 gr. of H-110 and CCI 350 primers) that chronographs an average 1,760 fps at 15-ft. from the muzzle!!!!!!!!!!
My Dad's stainless Redhawk has a B/C gap of .005" and it won't top 1,600 fps with the same load.
Guns are funny like that, I've found. They're all a law unto themselves.
I know my frame is stretched ever-so-slightly, but I'm not going to mess with it. No endshake with this gun that is perceptible. I bought this gun in 1985 or so, and it's a jewel.
BTW, thanks ever-so-much for the Brownell link. I've got their new catalog, but I can't find anything in it because I always get too distracted at everything else in it!
Cheers,
Allen
Thanks for the reply. Sometimes terminology gets in the way when communicating in a forum such as this.Allen, I don't disagree with any of the information you've posted. I may have used slightly different terms, but we were essentially talking about the same things,problemwise.
Your revolver experience likely greater than mine. However, Brownells has Colt SAA cylinder Endshake bearings available for reproduction guns. Try here: http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/ ... E+BEARINGS
They're near the bottom of the page.
Replacing the endshake bearings can have an impact on cylinder gap spacing/head spacing in your pistol. I don't believe you mentiond the gap of your SAA clone at full lock-up, but adding these bearing shims can set the cylinder back the distance you need to remove the endshake. If your gap is on the high side of "in-tolerance" then the shims may push you out of the safety envelope, requiring the barrel to be set back to close the gap. You'll have to be the judge on if further repair work is necessary
FYI, when my cylinder is fully-forward, the barrel/cylinder gap is .003" and is .005" when fully-backward, so I've got .002" endshake, so an excessive barrel/cylinder gap won't be a problem.
Incidentally, I have an Old Model Ruger Blackhawk in .41 Mag. (made in 1965) that has a B/C gap of .009" and it shoots like a demon.
I have a load (170 gr. Sierra JHC in front of 22.5 gr. of H-110 and CCI 350 primers) that chronographs an average 1,760 fps at 15-ft. from the muzzle!!!!!!!!!!
My Dad's stainless Redhawk has a B/C gap of .005" and it won't top 1,600 fps with the same load.
Guns are funny like that, I've found. They're all a law unto themselves.
I know my frame is stretched ever-so-slightly, but I'm not going to mess with it. No endshake with this gun that is perceptible. I bought this gun in 1985 or so, and it's a jewel.
BTW, thanks ever-so-much for the Brownell link. I've got their new catalog, but I can't find anything in it because I always get too distracted at everything else in it!
Cheers,
Allen
-
allendavis
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:27 pm
Need Bushing/Shim for EMF .45 Colt SAA
J Miller wrote:
However, I do have the newest Lyman, Sierra, Hornady and Hodgdon manuals. Almost all manuals have some sort of table listing powders in the rate of burning speed, and NONE I've seen puts HP-38 all that close to WW-231. In fact, most of my info indicates that 231 is just slightly slower than Bullseye, which is listed as the fastest-burning powder in all my info, and has for the last 35 years.
My info indicates that HP-38 is a fast-burning powder, but in about the same class as PB or SR-7625, which makes it much slower than 231, but faster than Unique.
I'm like you, if your Rugers are within spec, shoot 'em. They're built like bank vaults. I posted in another reply about my own OM Blackhawk .41 Mag. The original owner shot the living piss out of it before he died. The frame is stretched and the B/C gap is .009" but hasn't increased since I've owned it, and it's the one handgun I own that I'm not gentle with or afraid to hot-rod just a bit. Or used to, I should say.
My favorite load for my OM Blackhawk is either the Hornady or Sierra 210-gr. JHP/JHC in front of 19.5 gr. of 2400, although I'm really fond of that 170 gr. Sierra bullet that absolutely screams in front of 22.5 gr. of H-110. (The latter load is slightly compressed, so I'd approach it with great caution if you want to try it and love the .41 Mag. like I do)
Which brings up another subject: I should start a thread by insulting everyone who loves the .44 Mag. Anything it will do, my .41 Mag. will do just as well, with less noise, less recoil, flatter trajectory and deeper penetration.
I never had the problem you described with the Dan Wesson's I had, but mine were way back in the day when Reagan was President. Mine stayed right at .006" with no problem.
If you were shooting lead bullets (or even the old-style Speer semi-jacketed bullets), perhaps you were experiencing a build-up of lead on the cylinder face and breech of the barrel.
Thanks for your replies and the information!
Regards,
Allen
Perhaps I need to buy another couple of new loading manuals because the ones I have don't show a great deal of data for HP-38.I didn't suggest changing loadings. I mearly commented that HP-38 and Win 231 is the same powder just sold under different names by two different companies. And compared the load data from each.
After comparing the data I stated: (And I quote myself here) "So your load is below standard pressure loads. Nothing to worry about in the wear causing department."
I shoot lots of Win 231 from my own .45 Colts. I primarily use the 7.1 gr load simply because it's a factory duplication load.
I only mentioned that your load was a borderline squib load because I thought you were conserned that it was causing your gun to wear prematurely. Sorry, it apears I miss-understood what you posted.
If you want to reduce the endshake to .000" then by all means go for it.
I'd like to tighten up my OM Ruger SAs too, but they don't use a bushing to regulate endshake and I'm too cheep to pay shipping to send them to an out of state gunsmith. So since they are still within safe limits - I just shoot 'em as is.
About Dan Wessons. I've had two or three in years past. I disremember which. I didn't keep them long. Although they were tough, accurate, reliable, and for the most part durable, they all had one annoying trait that I could not tollerate. No matter what techniqe I used to set the barrel / cylinder gap, it would close up pretty quick. I ended up carrying the barrel wrench and feeler guage with me every time I went shooting the guns. That got old quick.
Traded all of them off for other shooters.
However, I do have the newest Lyman, Sierra, Hornady and Hodgdon manuals. Almost all manuals have some sort of table listing powders in the rate of burning speed, and NONE I've seen puts HP-38 all that close to WW-231. In fact, most of my info indicates that 231 is just slightly slower than Bullseye, which is listed as the fastest-burning powder in all my info, and has for the last 35 years.
My info indicates that HP-38 is a fast-burning powder, but in about the same class as PB or SR-7625, which makes it much slower than 231, but faster than Unique.
I'm like you, if your Rugers are within spec, shoot 'em. They're built like bank vaults. I posted in another reply about my own OM Blackhawk .41 Mag. The original owner shot the living piss out of it before he died. The frame is stretched and the B/C gap is .009" but hasn't increased since I've owned it, and it's the one handgun I own that I'm not gentle with or afraid to hot-rod just a bit. Or used to, I should say.
My favorite load for my OM Blackhawk is either the Hornady or Sierra 210-gr. JHP/JHC in front of 19.5 gr. of 2400, although I'm really fond of that 170 gr. Sierra bullet that absolutely screams in front of 22.5 gr. of H-110. (The latter load is slightly compressed, so I'd approach it with great caution if you want to try it and love the .41 Mag. like I do)
Which brings up another subject: I should start a thread by insulting everyone who loves the .44 Mag. Anything it will do, my .41 Mag. will do just as well, with less noise, less recoil, flatter trajectory and deeper penetration.
I never had the problem you described with the Dan Wesson's I had, but mine were way back in the day when Reagan was President. Mine stayed right at .006" with no problem.
If you were shooting lead bullets (or even the old-style Speer semi-jacketed bullets), perhaps you were experiencing a build-up of lead on the cylinder face and breech of the barrel.
Thanks for your replies and the information!
Regards,
Allen
-
allendavis
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:27 pm
Need Bushing/Shim for EMF .45 Colt SAA
To J Miller
I've been looking high and low and I can't find a single load for the .45 Colt using 231 powder with a 255-gr. Keith-style SWC.
At the same time, only my Lyman and Hodgdon loading data is more fresh than 1996, which is now 10 years old.
And I also notice that the newer the loading gets, the more conservative it becomes. Makes one wonder: either the powder manufacturers have re-formulated their powders, or the data providers are working harder and harder to cover their asses.
I did find one Bulleye load of 6.0 gr. of Bullseye with a 240 gr. Sierra JHP, but it only launches the bullet at 750 fps, which is not a factory duplication load because of the velocity and the bullet type.
This is from Sierra's manual.
Please believe me, I'm not trying to pick a beef or anything, I'm just curious about your information.
As for my load of 6.5 gr. of HP-38, it should be a middle-of-the-road load for my 255 gr. lead SWC, which was copied out of a manual at one of my favorite gun-stuff stores by the owner.
I will say that in 30+ years of handloading, I've always found the best way to get to a good load is to select a powder, look at the starting load and the maximum load and do some math to find the exact middle. Then compare it to any other manual that might be comparable.
In my experience, starting loads usually suck, and maximum loads rarely give the best accuracy. If the load I land on isn't satisfactory, I'll up the charge 1/10th gr. at a time until I hit a sweet spot.
Rarely have I ever, ever found that "sweet spot" to be below the median loading.
In my youth, I got "magnum fever" and tried to hot-rod every gun I owned. Experience has taught me that if I need a really hot load, then what I really need is a bigger gun, and that's advice I wish every handloader on earth would take to heart.
The hardware lasts longer, you get better accuracy, more economical shooting, more satisfaction and a knowledge that you are really good at what you're doing.
Just the rantings of an old guy who has been around the block a few times.
Thanks for the exchanges. Talk like this makes my day. I have to deal with too many idiots at our gun club and far too few people who know what the hell they're talking about . . . say, like the .38 Super for one.
Kindest regards,
Allen
I've been looking high and low and I can't find a single load for the .45 Colt using 231 powder with a 255-gr. Keith-style SWC.
At the same time, only my Lyman and Hodgdon loading data is more fresh than 1996, which is now 10 years old.
And I also notice that the newer the loading gets, the more conservative it becomes. Makes one wonder: either the powder manufacturers have re-formulated their powders, or the data providers are working harder and harder to cover their asses.
I did find one Bulleye load of 6.0 gr. of Bullseye with a 240 gr. Sierra JHP, but it only launches the bullet at 750 fps, which is not a factory duplication load because of the velocity and the bullet type.
This is from Sierra's manual.
Please believe me, I'm not trying to pick a beef or anything, I'm just curious about your information.
As for my load of 6.5 gr. of HP-38, it should be a middle-of-the-road load for my 255 gr. lead SWC, which was copied out of a manual at one of my favorite gun-stuff stores by the owner.
I will say that in 30+ years of handloading, I've always found the best way to get to a good load is to select a powder, look at the starting load and the maximum load and do some math to find the exact middle. Then compare it to any other manual that might be comparable.
In my experience, starting loads usually suck, and maximum loads rarely give the best accuracy. If the load I land on isn't satisfactory, I'll up the charge 1/10th gr. at a time until I hit a sweet spot.
Rarely have I ever, ever found that "sweet spot" to be below the median loading.
In my youth, I got "magnum fever" and tried to hot-rod every gun I owned. Experience has taught me that if I need a really hot load, then what I really need is a bigger gun, and that's advice I wish every handloader on earth would take to heart.
The hardware lasts longer, you get better accuracy, more economical shooting, more satisfaction and a knowledge that you are really good at what you're doing.
Just the rantings of an old guy who has been around the block a few times.
Thanks for the exchanges. Talk like this makes my day. I have to deal with too many idiots at our gun club and far too few people who know what the hell they're talking about . . . say, like the .38 Super for one.
Kindest regards,
Allen
Allen,
Sounds like your SAA will be fine with those bearings. Funny how some guns work with high tolerances and others don't shoot accurately when their at optimum specifications. A lot has to do with the folks who put them togther, if they're on the ball, they can make anything work great, but if they're just putting in their time and letting the CNC machines do the work, then the gun can turn out to be a real dog.
Good luck with that shooter.
R,
Bullseye
Sounds like your SAA will be fine with those bearings. Funny how some guns work with high tolerances and others don't shoot accurately when their at optimum specifications. A lot has to do with the folks who put them togther, if they're on the ball, they can make anything work great, but if they're just putting in their time and letting the CNC machines do the work, then the gun can turn out to be a real dog.
Good luck with that shooter.
R,
Bullseye
Allan,
Speer #13, page #581, shows 8.0grs of 231 as the max load with their 250gr lead SWC producing a whopping 852fps.
AND on page 582 it shows 7.0grs of 231 with the RCBS 45-255SWC Keith bullet. Only it shows a pathetic 784 fps.
I've used the 8.0gr load of 231 with the 250gr swauged SWC and it's a sweet load. And I've used up to 7.5grs of 231 with 255gr BBSWCs and 255gr Keith SWCs. A very nice load that works well.
A nice load that has been posted by JohnK over at Handloads.com is:
Here is the link to the above listed load and many more .45 Colt loads.
http://www.handloads.com/loaddata/defau ... er&Source=
As far as the loading manuals, I've quit buying most of the new ones. About the only ones I buy are Speer. They seem to be maintaining a reasonable velocity level with their data. At least so far.
An example is the data from Hodgdons Annual Manual and the Win load data. Almost exact ballistic duplicates.
Somewhere, and I've been looking for it. I have an article telling which Hodgdons and which Winchester powders are the same. H110 and 296 is one pairing, Hp-38 and 231 is another. And there are more.
On the Hodgdons site there is a FAQ section and it has two of the discontinued Win powders documented as being the same as two Hodgdons powders.
I'll see if I can find that information and I'll post it here.
The HP-38 and Win 231 information is info I've read in numerous places.
Many times forum reports by folks that have chronographed both powders and found them to be the same. But since I use 231 and not Hp38, I haven't saved any of these articles. I'm searching for them now, and have asked a very knowledgable person over on another forum for assistance. He seems to have this stuff catagorized much better than I do.
I never did go through the magnumitus phase. I guess that's because I started out with the .45 Colt as my first center fire handgun and it did then and does now anything I want to do with a handgun. I've never owned a 44 Mag, or a 41 mag, but I've had several .357 mags. They bore me to tears.
Even now I rarely load up or shoot the heavy +P type loads, not even from my Ruger. It eats them like they are nothing, but I have no use for them - at this time.
Take care and ask me anyting you want, I'll do my best to answer it. As I said above, I'll post the Hodgdon / Winchester information as soon as I find/get it.
Joe
Ask and ye shall receive:I've been looking high and low and I can't find a single load for the .45 Colt using 231 powder with a 255-gr. Keith-style SWC.
Speer #13, page #581, shows 8.0grs of 231 as the max load with their 250gr lead SWC producing a whopping 852fps.
AND on page 582 it shows 7.0grs of 231 with the RCBS 45-255SWC Keith bullet. Only it shows a pathetic 784 fps.
I've used the 8.0gr load of 231 with the 250gr swauged SWC and it's a sweet load. And I've used up to 7.5grs of 231 with 255gr BBSWCs and 255gr Keith SWCs. A very nice load that works well.
A nice load that has been posted by JohnK over at Handloads.com is:
270gr LSWC 7.5 gr HP38 858 fps 1.645" Win LP Admin
This is the most accurate load I’ve found for my 5.5" Bisley.
Email author: johnk
See all of johnk's loads
Here is the link to the above listed load and many more .45 Colt loads.
http://www.handloads.com/loaddata/defau ... er&Source=
As far as the loading manuals, I've quit buying most of the new ones. About the only ones I buy are Speer. They seem to be maintaining a reasonable velocity level with their data. At least so far.
Hodgdons and Winchester share powder manufacturing plants. Many many of the Winchester powders are duplicates of the ones Hodgdons sells. Most of the load data you find will have either Win 231 or HP-38 listed, but rarely both. When you do find both the data is usually within a tenth or so of a grain of each other.Perhaps I need to buy another couple of new loading manuals because the ones I have don't show a great deal of data for HP-38.
However, I do have the newest Lyman, Sierra, Hornady and Hodgdon manuals. Almost all manuals have some sort of table listing powders in the rate of burning speed, and NONE I've seen puts HP-38 all that close to WW-231. In fact, most of my info indicates that 231 is just slightly slower than Bullseye, which is listed as the fastest-burning powder in all my info, and has for the last 35 years.
My info indicates that HP-38 is a fast-burning powder, but in about the same class as PB or SR-7625, which makes it much slower than 231, but faster than Unique.
An example is the data from Hodgdons Annual Manual and the Win load data. Almost exact ballistic duplicates.
Somewhere, and I've been looking for it. I have an article telling which Hodgdons and which Winchester powders are the same. H110 and 296 is one pairing, Hp-38 and 231 is another. And there are more.
On the Hodgdons site there is a FAQ section and it has two of the discontinued Win powders documented as being the same as two Hodgdons powders.
I'll see if I can find that information and I'll post it here.
Not a problem. Some things I know because I've done them. I've been loading my own ammo since the late 60s. Many of the loads I use now, I started using back then. They worked then, they were safe then, so they are safe now. It makes no sense to ignor a load that worked safely 30 years ago just because the ammo makers and reloading companies want to cover their behinds on the one hand and sell the new and improved components for the new and more powerfull guns that have just been introduced on the other hand.Please believe me, I'm not trying to pick a beef or anything, I'm just curious about your information.
The HP-38 and Win 231 information is info I've read in numerous places.
Many times forum reports by folks that have chronographed both powders and found them to be the same. But since I use 231 and not Hp38, I haven't saved any of these articles. I'm searching for them now, and have asked a very knowledgable person over on another forum for assistance. He seems to have this stuff catagorized much better than I do.
I never did go through the magnumitus phase. I guess that's because I started out with the .45 Colt as my first center fire handgun and it did then and does now anything I want to do with a handgun. I've never owned a 44 Mag, or a 41 mag, but I've had several .357 mags. They bore me to tears.
Even now I rarely load up or shoot the heavy +P type loads, not even from my Ruger. It eats them like they are nothing, but I have no use for them - at this time.
Take care and ask me anyting you want, I'll do my best to answer it. As I said above, I'll post the Hodgdon / Winchester information as soon as I find/get it.
Joe
Allan, I've noticed the biggest point of wear on my OM BH cylinder frame is at the front where the boss on the cylinder contacts the frame. In the years I've had mine I've watched this wear point slowly increase. If your BH was shot as extensivly as you say, I'd bet the frame isn't streached, but that this wear point on the frame has been worn and battered to the point it's at now. Were it my gun I'd get it tightened up just because I don't like to hear the cylinders move back and forth.I'm like you, if your Rugers are within spec, shoot 'em. They're built like bank vaults. I posted in another reply about my own OM Blackhawk .41 Mag. The original owner shot the living piss out of it before he died. The frame is stretched and the B/C gap is .009" but hasn't increased since I've owned it, and it's the one handgun I own that I'm not gentle with or afraid to hot-rod just a bit. Or used to, I should say.
Well, I like good loads, but I don't have a 41 mag. Sounds like it should get the job done.My favorite load for my OM Blackhawk is either the Hornady or Sierra 210-gr. JHP/JHC in front of 19.5 gr. of 2400, although I'm really fond of that 170 gr. Sierra bullet that absolutely screams in front of 22.5 gr. of H-110. (The latter load is slightly compressed, so I'd approach it with great caution if you want to try it and love the .41 Mag. like I do)
Which brings up another subject: I should start a thread by insulting everyone who loves the .44 Mag. Anything it will do, my .41 Mag. will do just as well, with less noise, less recoil, flatter trajectory and deeper penetration.
Well, now that might be a fun thread to watch. But then I'd have to jump in and tell everybody how the .45 Colt can better both of them with the right loads. 
Well, mine were bought in the late 70s early 80s, and right now I can't remember who occupied the white house then. And I shot lead, lots of it, jacketed, half jacketed and even FMC sometimes. The guns I had didn't care, after a while of full magnum loads the barrels would start screwing themselvs back into the cylinder face. I kept them clean, and followed the instructions in the manuals, but it was all in vain.I never had the problem you described with the Dan Wesson's I had, but mine were way back in the day when Reagan was President. Mine stayed right at .006" with no problem.
If you were shooting lead bullets (or even the old-style Speer semi-jacketed bullets), perhaps you were experiencing a build-up of lead on the cylinder face and breech of the barrel.
I keep asking myself why then do I want a DW .45 Colt pistol pack? I guess I'm just an addict for the old .45 Colt round.
Joe
Allan,
Here is the reply I got about the HP-38 / 231 question from JohnK over at http://forums.handloads.com/:
Hope this helps a bit.
Joe
Here is the reply I got about the HP-38 / 231 question from JohnK over at http://forums.handloads.com/:
Hi Joe,
I'm sure they're identical, but it's hard to find absolute hard proof of it. Hodgdon has been very quick to respond when I've emailed them in the past, I'd suggest he contact them at [email protected] and get the answer straight from the horses mouth.
Hodgdon used to have that info on their website, but I haven't been able to find it lately. Charles Petty (if you want to take his word, he's been kind of flakey and annoying in his articles lately....) claims it in this article from GUNS magazine: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n6180926
"Hodgdon doesn't make H-110--they buy it from St. Marks Powder Co., who makes the same powder and puts it in cans with Winchester 296 on the label. In fact, HP-38 goes by 231 in other cans and HS-6 is also W-W 540 and HS-7 is W-W 571."
This page at Hodgdons site confirms the 540/571 connection: http://www.hodgdon.com/faq/index.php#Winchester540
I've emailed Hodgdon about the H110/Win296 question and Phil Hodgdon replied back that they were the same powder with different labels. I know I've read the same thing about HP38/231 in other places as well, but for the most part it's unconfirmed.
I did find this thread at Glocktalk where someone else claims to have a reply from Hodgdon saying they're the same:
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=6 ... ost5018701
From: Help Account
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 12:12 PM
Subject: RE: HP38
They are identical. Made in the same plant at the same time just different labels.
Mike Daly
Customer Satisfaction Manager
Hodgdon Powder Company/ IMR Powder Company
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 12:41 PM
To: Help Account
Subject: HP38
I have heard and read repeatedly that HP38 is the same powder as Winchester 231. I visually compared them today, and they do appear the same. The Hornady manual lists them right next to each other on the burn chart.
Are they the same powders? Thanks.
Bob
Hope this helps a bit.
Joe
-
allendavis
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:27 pm
Need Bushing/Shim for EMF .45 Colt SAA
J Miller:
We're getting lengthy enough here now that it's beginning to get complicated for me to quote-n-post, so here goes:
I do know that Hodgdon recently acquired the entire line of powders formerly made by Hercules.
In my 2005 Winchester loading manual, I find they list 7.1 gr. of WW-231 as their maximum giving a velocity of 875 fps, which is respectable (they don't show a starting load, so I suppose a reduction of 10% would give a load of 6.4 gr. Hmmm . . .
They also show a maximum charge of 5.5 gr. with a 250 gr. "cowboy" bullet at only 750 fps.
And if 231 and HP-38 are identical, then my loading of 6.5 gr. of HP-38 isn't a squib load after all.
Far be it from me to accuse anyone of having a forked tongue (or keyboard), but I'm having some trouble believing that Hodgdon and Winchester powders are identical and just packed in different cans. I'm naturally skeptical, but if I can see some proof, I'll stand up on my hind legs and offer an apology.
Thanks for the reply. Again, I enjoy these exchanges. I'm an information hog.
Regards,
Allen
We're getting lengthy enough here now that it's beginning to get complicated for me to quote-n-post, so here goes:
I can't address this since I don't have such first-hand knowledge about the powder manufacturers these days, although I'm still mourning over DuPon't decision to quit making powder. I do know a little more about our brass manufacturers, especially since Olin has its major brass manufacturing plant in Indianapolis (I live in Martinsville, about 30 miles southwest).Hodgdons and Winchester share powder manufacturing plants. Many many of the Winchester powders are duplicates of the ones Hodgdons sells. Most of the load data you find will have either Win 231 or HP-38 listed, but rarely both. When you do find both the data is usually within a tenth or so of a grain of each other.
An example is the data from Hodgdons Annual Manual and the Win load data. Almost exact ballistic duplicates.
I do know that Hodgdon recently acquired the entire line of powders formerly made by Hercules.
In my 2005 Winchester loading manual, I find they list 7.1 gr. of WW-231 as their maximum giving a velocity of 875 fps, which is respectable (they don't show a starting load, so I suppose a reduction of 10% would give a load of 6.4 gr. Hmmm . . .
They also show a maximum charge of 5.5 gr. with a 250 gr. "cowboy" bullet at only 750 fps.
And if 231 and HP-38 are identical, then my loading of 6.5 gr. of HP-38 isn't a squib load after all.
As for HP-38 and WW-231, I don't see how they could possibly be identical because 231 is a ball powder and HP-38 is a very fine flake powder. And please don't make me haul out my old Phillip B. Sharpe handloading book from 1937, which, aside from the loading data, is still considered by most as the benchmark as a reference work. He explains in painful, technical detail about the differences between the different powder types like flake, ball, spherical, stick, extruded, etc., etc.Somewhere, and I've been looking for it. I have an article telling which Hodgdons and which Winchester powders are the same. H110 and 296 is one pairing, Hp-38 and 231 is another. And there are more.
On the Hodgdons site there is a FAQ section and it has two of the discontinued Win powders documented as being the same as two Hodgdons powders.
I'll see if I can find that information and I'll post it here.
Far be it from me to accuse anyone of having a forked tongue (or keyboard), but I'm having some trouble believing that Hodgdon and Winchester powders are identical and just packed in different cans. I'm naturally skeptical, but if I can see some proof, I'll stand up on my hind legs and offer an apology.
So, you're an old guy like me. But, if all things are equal and the powders haven't changed, then why can I no longer use H-110 to load the .357 Mag. with a Sierra 140 gr. JHC??? The starting loads in my newest manuals all overflow the cases. I don't mind a little gentle powder compression, but this is ridiculous! And I have noticed gradual changes in my chronograph readings with old loads over the years. Some up, some down.Some things I know because I've done them. I've been loading my own ammo since the late 60s. Many of the loads I use now, I started using back then. They worked then, they were safe then, so they are safe now. It makes no sense to ignor a load that worked safely 30 years ago just because the ammo makers and reloading companies want to cover their behinds on the one hand and sell the new and improved components for the new and more powerfull guns that have just been introduced on the other hand.
Well, I don't know what to make of that, other than you love the .45 Colt, as do I. But I don't think the .45 Colt can match the .41 or .44 Mags. for certain jobs. Back in 1983, I got cocky after killing several wild boars in Tennessee with my OM Blackhawk .41 when Hornady introduced a new whiz-bang bullet they swore would "magnumize" the .45 ACP, so I took my custom Gov't. Model on the hunt, and nearly got served up as dinner myself to a wild brood sow when I got too close. It took 9 rounds to kill that pig. 8 Shots merely hit her in the skull and skidded down under her skin and stopped at the hams. A lucky shot happened to hit her in an eye socket and entered her brain. She began charging me from a distance of about 30 yards. She dropped dead only 10 feet from me. That was the last time I ever entertained using a .45 (ACP or Colt, since they're so close ballistically. I never had to shoot a wild hog more than once with my .41. End of story for me.I never did go through the magnumitus phase. I guess that's because I started out with the .45 Colt as my first center fire handgun and it did then and does now anything I want to do with a handgun. I've never owned a 44 Mag, or a 41 mag, but I've had several .357 mags. They bore me to tears.
Even now I rarely load up or shoot the heavy +P type loads, not even from my Ruger. It eats them like they are nothing, but I have no use for them - at this time.
Thanks for the reply. Again, I enjoy these exchanges. I'm an information hog.
Regards,
Allen
-
allendavis
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:27 pm
Need Bushing/Shim for EMF .45 Colt SAA
J Miller,
Another post to reply to your post (this thread, while extremely interesting to me, is beginning to get complicated) . . .
Just tell me how you can shoot that thing out at Silhouette ranges, like 220 yards (200 meters) to topple that pesky ram??? And given the rainbow trajectory of even a light jacketed bullet from a .45 Colt, you mean to tell me you can drop a deer with one shot at 100 yards???
My all-time longest range shot with a handgun was in 1990 (back when I could still see) when I dropped a deer with my OM .41 Blackhawk at 158 paces, which closely works to about the same in yards. I didn't have to hold over for elevation very far, either!
Now I shoot my .45 Colt at 150 yards shooting at clays on the backstop at our range, and the elevation holdover is ridiculous! And I only hit one out of every 5 shots -- if I'm lucky. I actually do better with my Hi-Power 9mm or my Chip McCormick .45 ACP Govt. Model!!!
As far as accuracy is concerned, I've never, ever seen any revolver as accurate as a DW. My Dad's Python comes close, but even it is a distant second. I had a buddy who had a scoped .357 DW with a 10" barrel, and I've seen him shoot MOA groups routinely at 100 yards.
I never liked their grip options, and I always felt the darned things were way too front-heavy, even though it does dampen recoil.
I'd wanted a .45 Colt handgun for years before I ever got one, but couldn't afford a genuine Colt and remained suspicious of the clones until I saw the one I bought, and it is a dandy (other than needing that pesky shim, which I'll buy soon).
Thanks so much for all the info and replies.
Kindest regards,
Allen
Another post to reply to your post (this thread, while extremely interesting to me, is beginning to get complicated) . . .
I have almost no wear at this point, perhaps only .001" or even less. The frame has stretched, according to Ruger, who did a re-blueing job for me. The cylinder on this gun does not have any endshake.I've noticed the biggest point of wear on my OM BH cylinder frame is at the front where the boss on the cylinder contacts the frame. In the years I've had mine I've watched this wear point slowly increase. If your BH was shot as extensivly as you say, I'd bet the frame isn't streached, but that this wear point on the frame has been worn and battered to the point it's at now. Were it my gun I'd get it tightened up just because I don't like to hear the cylinders move back and forth.
Hold on a second now, Hoss, them sounds like fightin' words!Well, now that might be a fun thread to watch. But then I'd have to jump in and tell everybody how the .45 Colt can better both of them with the right loads.
Just tell me how you can shoot that thing out at Silhouette ranges, like 220 yards (200 meters) to topple that pesky ram??? And given the rainbow trajectory of even a light jacketed bullet from a .45 Colt, you mean to tell me you can drop a deer with one shot at 100 yards???
My all-time longest range shot with a handgun was in 1990 (back when I could still see) when I dropped a deer with my OM .41 Blackhawk at 158 paces, which closely works to about the same in yards. I didn't have to hold over for elevation very far, either!
Now I shoot my .45 Colt at 150 yards shooting at clays on the backstop at our range, and the elevation holdover is ridiculous! And I only hit one out of every 5 shots -- if I'm lucky. I actually do better with my Hi-Power 9mm or my Chip McCormick .45 ACP Govt. Model!!!
DWs were spotty off-and-on all during their production runs. Quality control was never a strong suit with DW to begin with. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, I found the pawls (hands, whatever) to be the weakest point of the whole gun. They simply wouldn't stand up to rapid double-action fire at all. After repairing about a dozen of them, DW finally authorized me as an "Official Warranty Repair Center."Well, mine were bought in the late 70s early 80s, and right now I can't remember who occupied the white house then. And I shot lead, lots of it, jacketed, half jacketed and even FMC sometimes. The guns I had didn't care, after a while of full magnum loads the barrels would start screwing themselvs back into the cylinder face. I kept them clean, and followed the instructions in the manuals, but it was all in vain.
I keep asking myself why then do I want a DW .45 Colt pistol pack? I guess I'm just an addict for the old .45 Colt round.
As far as accuracy is concerned, I've never, ever seen any revolver as accurate as a DW. My Dad's Python comes close, but even it is a distant second. I had a buddy who had a scoped .357 DW with a 10" barrel, and I've seen him shoot MOA groups routinely at 100 yards.
I never liked their grip options, and I always felt the darned things were way too front-heavy, even though it does dampen recoil.
I'd wanted a .45 Colt handgun for years before I ever got one, but couldn't afford a genuine Colt and remained suspicious of the clones until I saw the one I bought, and it is a dandy (other than needing that pesky shim, which I'll buy soon).
Thanks so much for all the info and replies.
Kindest regards,
Allen